|
On November 04 2013 10:01 Millicant wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 09:52 SC2John wrote:On November 04 2013 04:48 B-rye88 wrote:
Now, this is fascinating. Not to stir up drama, but disagreement between you two really makes for awesome discussion and I (and others like me) benefit greatly from it!
So this re-ignites my earlier question about reacting/responding to your opponent's play. I understand that for the process of developing a strategy or game plan, you are clearly saying "Don't modify it! Look at the replays and make adjustments after many many games!" That makes perfect sense - got it.
However, does this mean that you NEVER react to what your opponent is doing? Even once your plan is developed and solidified, you blindly follow your plan and whichever player's plan comes out on top wins? This seems a little... disappointing.
Lastly, you state "I would say, anyone under the rank of Plat can use that method as a valid approach if they wanted too." That method meaning the blind macro? But to the contrary you are saying that finding the logic behind the plan and executing is superior, yes?
My thoughts: Your plan can include divergent options. For me, this would be something such as "I will scout my protoss opponent with a reaper before going up the ramp with my 3-rax stim timing; if he is still on one-base, I will set up a light contain to keep him on one-base, and use the reaper / scan to find out whether he's teching or 4-gating, cut a round of production to expand, and either bunker the high & low ground in case of twilight, get missile turrets if we see dark shrine, get 3 bunkers on the low ground if I see immortal play, or tech to starport if I see a robo bay; If i see early tech and little production, I can also go up the ramp and kill the tech structure with my stim". The game will play out the same way early, with the same build, but I have decided to do various things based on what I find. So long as you have a plan, derived from logic, you can then learn to execute it. I wrote about this a page ago...I talked about the difference of playing to win vs. playing to practice. It's really important to understand that vader and I are talking about playing to practice. Playing to win means using your refined strategy "toolbox" in order to pick the best strategy and variation in order to best beat your particular opponent while playing to practice is means specifically playing one strategy over and over, changing little to nothing from game to game, in order to refine that strategy and learn the best possible way to play it. When vader says something like "Do not change your strategy at all during the game," he is not implying that you should ignore what your opponent is doing. What he means is to take a large sample size of the same exact build to see what damage it can do and how it can come crumbling down. After you have this sample size, make minor adjustments or add some considerations to your strategy to fix the weak areas or strengthen the strong areas. Ah - that definitely clears it up somewhat. Thanks!
Ya. The idea is that you are willing to lose in a way that will help give you the needed information in order to play better in the future instead of maybe winning now but getting zero useful information to make you better.
|
On November 04 2013 04:22 Millicant wrote: However, does this mean that you NEVER react to what your opponent is doing? Even once your plan is developed and solidified, you blindly follow your plan and whichever player's plan comes out on top wins? This seems a little... disappointing.
Well yes I am kind of saying that. But thats not saying all of it and it makes it sound dull as hell.
What I am saying is that you follow your plan and stick to it unless you had planned a deviation. You work on playing your style as perfect as you can in game and work on tweaking what that style is out of the game.
And you make it sound like you actually will get a plan to a finished state. That really doesnt happen. If player A solves players B current style then it is up to player B to solve the new game state which pushes the ball back to player A etc. And thats just a two player example.
|
Are there any specific Z builds for timings (2base centric) that are good for hots? Most hots Z stuff is purely fast 3 base and out producing enemies for big battles after 12 minutes. Most of the 2-base builds from liquipedia are still from WoL and there has changed much i fear.
|
On November 05 2013 04:08 havoc.the.chaos wrote: Are there any specific Z builds for timings (2base centric) that are good for hots? Most hots Z stuff is purely fast 3 base and out producing enemies for big battles after 12 minutes. Most of the 2-base builds from liquipedia are still from WoL and there has changed much i fear.
Reread thread and then state your Game plan or maybe ask about how a certain plan might work on a map.
Your question is a about build orders which are just tools to accomplish a plan. I can't recommend specific tool options till I know what job the tool is going to be used for.
|
I feel like this exercise works MUCH better with Protoss/Terran for several reasons but here goes....
In ZvP, I want to win by staying one base ahead and denying my opponents fourth base with a mass of Roach/Hydra and Viper support.
Step 1: What kind of production and income do we need to execute this strategy? We want a strong 3-base economy and also mine from 8 gas geysers. We also want at least five Hatcheries for production. So we'll take four bases with a Macro hatchery and produce at least 72 Drones for optimal saturation. I will also need Hive tech, Roach and Hydra speed and Evolution Chamber upgrades.
Step 2: How can we safely power? We will need to scout and react appropriately to incoming pressure. In order to do this, we need map control and vision. Zergling Speed, Creep Spread, and good Overlord positioning seem to be the solution. We probably do not need to start Metabolic Boost until his Warpgate Research begins. Nor do we need to see inside of his base until his Cybernetics Core is complete.
Step 3: What am I looking for with my scouting? In addition to spotting key tech structures and production facilities, we should keep track of his Probe saturation and his Gas expendeture.
Step 4: What kind of mid-game army will defend my powering efficiently? From previous experience, I know that I will need to base my composition off of my opponent. Versus early Gateway armies, I will need to rely on Speedlings. If he has +1 attack, Speedlings won't cut it and I need Roaches. Versus many Sentries and/or Immortals, I want Hydralisks behind a few Roaches. Versus mass Blink Stalkers, I need Hydralisks and Zerglings and probably some static defense. Versus Stargate producing Phoenix, I need to create Spore Crawlers to protect my Drone line and would also like to have Hydralisks. Versus Stargate producing Voidrays, Hydralisks are a great choice. Versus a committed Collossi attack, I will need some Corruptors.
Step 5: How can we refine the mid game? When should we take our third and fourth bases? How should we prioritize economy/tech/army? We should take our third base fairly early. In most VODS, the Zerg places his third shortly after the Protoss expands to their natural. In my experience, this is also a good guideline for taking a fourth base. We should scout our opponent to determine whether to invest in E/T/A.
Conclusion: I want scout my opponents opening with my first Overlord and take a fast 2nd Hatchery and make an Extractor directly after. If I spot a Nexus, I will choose not to mine gas and take my 3rd Hatchery. I will produce three Queens to begin spreading creep and mine just enough Gas for Metabolic Boost. When I know the Cybernetics Core is complete, I will send my Overlord into his main and use Lings to scout his wall. What I see will determine which mid-game army I will choose from "Step 4". When I reach full saturation on two bases, I will resume mining gas whilst saturating my third base. Around this time, I will check his natural gas. If I see no Assimilators or many Gateways at his wall/main, I will make a Roach Warren. Otherwise, I will add more Extractors and begin Lair/Evolution Chamber upgrades. At this point, I will add an additional Hatchery(in my main if he hasnt expanded again). While my Lair is morphing, I need to figure out his tech path and scout his third. I will power to three base saturation on four gas and make a Hydralisk Den for defense. If he has taken his third, I will also take my fourth and add a second Evolution Chamber and Infestation Pit. I'll start Hive ASAP. From here, I will finish powering to my target of 8 gas and at least 72 Drones and control the map with my Roach/Hydra/Viper composition.
|
On November 05 2013 14:35 kaos00 wrote:I feel like this exercise works MUCH better with Protoss/Terran for several reasons but here goes.... In ZvP, I want to win by powering my economy and denying my opponents fourth with a mass of Roach/Hydra and Viper support. Step 1: What kind of production and income do we need to execute this strategy? We want a strong 3-base economy and also mine from 8 gas geysers. We also want at least five Hatcheries for production. So we'll take four bases with a Macro hatchery and produce at least 72 Drones for optimal saturation. I will also need Hive tech, Roach and Hydra speed and Evolution Chamber upgrades. Step 2: How can we safely power? We will need to scout and react appropriately to incoming pressure. In order to do this, we need map control and vision. Zergling Speed, Creep Spread, and good Overlord positioning seem to be the solution. We probably do not need to start Metabolic Boost until his Warpgate Research begins. Nor do we need to see inside of his base until his Cybernetics Core is complete. Step 3: What am I looking for with my scouting? In addition to spotting key tech structures and production facilities, we should keep track of his Probe saturation and his Gas expendeture. Step 4: What kind of mid-game army will defend my powering efficiently? From previous experience, I know that I will need to base my composition off of my opponent. Versus early Gateway armies, I will need to rely on Speedlings. If he has +1 attack, Speedlings won't cut it and I need Roaches. Versus many Sentries and/or Immortals, I want Hydralisks behind a few Roaches. Versus mass Blink Stalkers, I need Hydralisks and Zerglings and probably some static defense. Versus Stargate producing Phoenix, I need to create Spore Crawlers to protect my Drone line and would also like to have Hydralisks. Versus Stargate producing Voidrays, Hydralisks are a great choice. Versus a committed Collossi attack, I will need some Corruptors. Step 5: How can we refine the mid game? When should we take our third and fourth bases? How should we prioritize economy/tech/army? We should take our third base fairly early. In most VODS, the Zerg places his third shortly after the Protoss expands to their natural. In my experience, this is also a good guideline for taking a fourth base. We should scout our opponent to determine whether to invest in E/T/A. Conclusion:I want scout my opponents opening with my first Overlord and take a fast 2nd Hatchery and make an Extractor directly after. If I spot a Nexus, I will choose not to mine gas and take my 3rd Hatchery. I will produce three Queens to begin spreading creep and mine just enough Gas for Metabolic Boost. When I know the Cybernetics Core is complete, I will send my Overlord into his main and use Lings to scout his wall. What I see will determine which mid-game army I will choose from "Step 4". When I reach full saturation on two bases, I will resume mining gas whilst saturating my third base. Around this time, I will check his natural gas. If I see no Assimilators or many Gateways at his wall/main, I will make a Roach Warren. Otherwise, I will add more Extractors and begin Lair/Evolution Chamber upgrades. At this point, I will add an additional Hatchery(in my main if he hasnt expanded again). While my Lair is morphing, I need to figure out his tech path and scout his third. I will power to three base saturation on four gas and make a Hydralisk Den for defense. If he has taken his third, I will also take my fourth and add a second Evolution Chamber and Infestation Pit. I'll start Hive ASAP. From here, I will finish powering to my target of 8 gas and at least 72 Drones and control the map with my Roach/Hydra/Viper composition.
I would take the powering my economy out of your main statement. That will help to open up your play in a good direction mindset wise when you run into any issues.
|
On November 05 2013 14:46 vaderseven wrote: I would take the powering my economy out of your main statement. That will help to open up your play in a good direction mindset wise when you run into any issues.
That's all? OK, done. Critique please?
|
This thread has been an incredible read. Thanks vaderseven and SC2John! You've really got me focused on the nitty gritty of constructing strategies and keep me locked in on the right mindset.
In particluar, this post by vaderseven encapsulates the core of what I am looking for in this debate and is just what I needed. I dare say it is the best post in the whole damn thread:
+ Show Spoiler +John, I disagree. Rather strongly to be honest. I find the very best way to learn the strongest ways to play is to actually play in a very rigid way in game. When I am learning a new style I will come up with I feel is a logical game plan vs the most common thing I face and I will then plan out everything macro and army movement wise. I then will go play that exact plan vs as many people as possible on that map. I will group all the replays (regardless of win or lose) by enemy game plan. Once I have a good group of replays vs a type of enemy play style, I watch them all back to back looking for patterns. Seeing different people do similar styles will often make patterns REALLY jump out as while every player has hugely different takes on styles there is core concepts in every style that carry over from player to player. As such, those core concepts will stick out as very similar actions, timings, movements, etc regardless of the player. Only once I have seen these patterns emerge do I attempt any type of modification to my play. This keeps my modifications focused on the enemy's plan instead of of cute things that happen in single games. Often, when you have tweaked your play to handle a style in a logical way, small cute things become non factors when they before seemed like huge roadblocked that had to be addressed. This kind of approach to learning a style leads to a huge number of loses at first due to you blindly following a plan. Your army will be snipped because it was at a dangerous location. Your main will fall because you had no defense to his harass. The game will suddenly end because three DT walk into your main. Thats PERFECT. If I have 19 replays of my 4M vs two base muta players I can watch them all back to back, find the common part of why I lost to each of them, address that sole factor, and have the smallest and easiest to understand adjustment that works vs all two base muta plays. This leads to very smart reactions such as burrowing two mines in very specific spots in reply to seeing a late gas opening, no fast third base, and only two queens followed by adding two very specific turrets at two very specific locations once the mutas are seen. The mines will be placed at the only two locations that I have ever seen 2 base muta players send their first mutas in at and the two turrets will be placed at two locations that I have simply never been able to get a marines from my rally to fast enough to defend though they were always just a second too late. This adjustment might allow me to be safe vs the mutas as the two mines buy me just enough safety to get the two turrets up and by the time a muta ball big enough to deal with that is in play my game plan has moved to a point where he has to react to it or die. On the fly adjustments or even adjustments based on only one reply would have probably led me to scanning at a certain time, spamming 2 turrets at each base, and delaying some timing. The turrets location would be based on fear of where I perceive weakness instead of what the other player has tested vs many Terran players is actually weak. I would end up investing more resources in game to a on the fly reaction that will not possibly contain logic created through pattern observation and will instead contain fear motivated by guesses. Basically, take huge value in replays where you get completely crushed because you didn't know the enemy would do something. Gather as many as you can and organize them and then apply logic to patterns you see. By keeping your play a constant, you will be able to actually craft exact deviations that require the least investment for the largest payoff. The more times you have done the exact same thing, the more exactly you know its actual weakness. By knowing your plays actual weakness you can address the real problem. If you freestyle, you practice at guessing and perfecting the art of fear. I prefer to perfect the art of problem solving. Treat the game like a science experiment, don't let your own play be an un-measurable variable when it could be the ultimate control. A strange and wonderful result of this approach is that what sounds like memorization actually becomes intuition. You just have to separate the active questioning part of the mind from the active playing. Once that is done, the things you decide as logical will be revealed slowly as truths in your play. As that happens, you learn that logic and how to play it at a much deeper level than some kind of written out build order or list of reactions. For more on this, see http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/zatic/Day[9]0002-BuildingTriggers.mp3 (discusses how getting large sample size of replays where you play the same is trully crucial in developing good decisions) and read this great wonderful quote: - Hide Spoiler - Have confidence in your execution, and skepticism and doubt in your analysis. When you're playing the game, you should be convinced that what you're doing is absolutely correct, so that way you can maximize your efficiency with whatever you're doing. Whether it'd be a really strong play or an absolutely flawed play. After the game is when you should look at your play and say "mhm, what did I do right and wrong here, what's a way that I could improve? What's a build that he could have done that would have crushed this a 100% of the time?" That is when you think of what adjustments you want to make for the next game. And of course, in that next game, you'll play with 100% confidence as though everything you're doing is absolutely correct. A huge issue that a lot of players deal with is that when they are in the game, and they get thrown off just a little bit - maybe they get storm-dropped or maybe they see a strategy they havent seen before -, that's when they start to analyze their play and to make these huge, large-scale adjustments. Unless making that adjustment was part of your plan, don't do it! You need to make sure that what you're doing is something you are comfortable and confident with. That is what's going to maximize your chance of winning, not some last minute, second-guessing strategy you pulled out of nowhere. -day9, podcast on Having a Good Mindset
I think this topic should be spotlighted. This is a shining example of the sort of material that I would love to see more often in the strategy forum. Incredible shit.
I can't wait to share what I've been working on with you guys! I'll pack in some replays too!
|
United States4883 Posts
I wanted to give my own example of a comprehensive game plan. This is just a very rough version that doesn't even include half of what I eventually need to know. Most of this is based off of my previous knowledge and what I know to work so far, but it has a lot of holes in it and needs to be revised several times through practice before it becomes a finished product. You can see that I have a much clearer understanding of the lategame than I do of the mid game or the early game; this is because I have a clear vision of where I want to be, but I'm not sure of all the infinite variables leading up to that point. Yet. This is a work in progress and I will post an update when I have it filled out better so that everyone can see the difference.
Rough Draft PvT: + Show Spoiler +
GOAL: (In PvT), To starve the terran out in the lategame by using army pressure and zealot/DT warpins to deny additional expansions while staying ahead in expansions myself.
LATE GAME:
1) Economy and Expansion Management:
~70 probes on 4-5 bases. My goal is to always have 3 mining bases: when my main runs dry, I need a 4th; when my natural runs dry, I need a 5th, etc. It is VERY important to have at least 6 running geysers.
I can rely on cannons, HTs, and DTs to defend small drops. Storms can buy me enough time if my army is out of position to stop my opponent's army.
2) Army composition:
Stalker/colossus/archon/HT. At about 100 army supply, I should have about 6 colossus, 16 stalkers, 2-3 archons, a sentry for GS, and several HT scattered around the map. (6x6 + 16x2 + 3x4 + 2 = 82 + ~9 HT)
With ~70 workers, this leaves me with about 30 supply open, meaning I can use warpins of approximately 13 zealots/2 DTs at a time.
3) Warpin ability
I need to have to ability to warp in units anywhere on the map in order to achieve my goal of constant pressure, so I want to focus on spreading pylons and having an active warp prism.
My warp prism should always be on the opposite side of the map as my army and poised to warp in when the terran player gets out of position. Additionally, I want to have a probe actively making pylons using my "pylon spreading" method (i.e., building a pylon then moving the probe to the next proxy location, repeat every 30 seconds).
TRANSITION:
Once I have both storm and colossus tech and am approaching maxed, I will move out on the map to pressure my opponent while taking a 4th. My main army will be positioned in a way to protect my 4th while my warp prism will threaten the terran on the other side of the map. During this time I will also fill out my tech tree by adding 4-6 gateways, a second robo, and dark shrine.
By the time I move out, I should have +2/+2.
MID GAME:
GOAL: I want 3 bases, blink, charge, colossus tech, and storm.
Order: colossus/blink -> 3rd base -> storm -> charge.
TAKING THE 3RD: I will use colossus/blink to secure my 3rd base around 12:00.
I want to be protected vs. frontal assaults as well as defend against drops. I will leave 2 zealots/5 stalkers in my main and the rest of my army between my natural and my third; my MSC will stay parked between my natural and my main. Whenever my opponent moves out of position to attack me, I will drop his main base and keep my warp prism alive. After my 3rd base is up, I will add 4 gateways for a total of 10.
After 3 colossi, I will transition into storm while getting my 5th and 6th geysers up. During this time I will also start charge.
I want to use all my chronoboost on upgrades and colossus/storm/charge tech during the mid game.
SCV PULLS: To defend SCV pulls, I will pull all of my tech units to my natural and pull back as far as possible while flanking with zealot warpins and templar.
MAP VISION: It's important for me to have good map vision in the mid game. Therefore, I need 4-5 observers and a probe spreading pylons along the outskirts of the map.
TRANSITION:
I want to warp in 2 rounds of zealots just before 10:00 to deal with the terran medivac pressure. Once I hold off the initial pressure, I want to warp in primarily stalkers while producing colossi.
EARLY GAME:
Blink stalker/colossus opening
9 pylon 13 gateway 15 double gas (2 in 2) 17 pylon 18 core 20 zealot (cancel) 21 warp gate 21 MSC 23 nexus 23 pylon @100% gateway -> stalker x3 (chronoboost) 29 robo (5:00) 35 forge (5:45) @100% warpgate -> sentry @100% forge -> +1 armor @6:45 gate x2 @7:00 natural gases @8:00 robo bay @8:30 twilight @9:00 gate x3
@100% robo bay -> colossus + range @100% twilight -> blink and +1 attack
Chronoboost colossus/thermal lance -> Strong 2-base timing with 3-4 colossus
OR blink/+1 attack -> Later army, against later timings -> "powering" option
OR colossus/blink (*standard*) -> Strong army early -> faster, safer 3rd base
My MSC will scout the opponent's main at 5:30 to get a good indication of the terran's plan. If I see an early starport, I will place a cannon in my main and use my units to protect the main and photon overcharge and an observer to protect my natural. If no expansion, I will cut probes and go up to 4 gateways ASAP. I will rely on good micro, forcefields, and photon overcharge to deal with any pre-medivac pressure.
Conclusion: I want to open with a fast expansion and power up economically while deflecting any type of terran aggression. I will get up a colossus by 10:00 and blink shortly thereafter and transition into a colossus/blink army to take my 3rd. Once I have my 3rd up, I can start my templar tech and transition into chargelots as well. Once I have +2/+2 and a nearly maxed out army, I will move out to pressure the terran while taking a 4th and filling out my tech tree. The rest of the game I want to focus on continually denying the terran's expansions using positioning of my main army and zealot/DT warpins while always staying on at least two mining bases.
|
On November 06 2013 02:29 SC2John wrote:I wanted to give my own example of a comprehensive game plan. This is just a very rough version that doesn't even include half of what I eventually need to know. Most of this is based off of my previous knowledge and what I know to work so far, but it has a lot of holes in it and needs to be revised several times through practice before it becomes a finished product. You can see that I have a much clearer understanding of the lategame than I do of the mid game or the early game; this is because I have a clear vision of where I want to be, but I'm not sure of all the infinite variables leading up to that point. Yet. This is a work in progress and I will post an update when I have it filled out better so that everyone can see the difference. Rough Draft PvT: + Show Spoiler +
GOAL: (In PvT), To starve the terran out in the lategame by using army pressure and zealot/DT warpins to deny additional expansions while staying ahead in expansions myself.
LATE GAME:
1) Economy and Expansion Management:
~70 probes on 4-5 bases. My goal is to always have 3 mining bases: when my main runs dry, I need a 4th; when my natural runs dry, I need a 5th, etc. It is VERY important to have at least 6 running geysers.
I can rely on cannons, HTs, and DTs to defend small drops. Storms can buy me enough time if my army is out of position to stop my opponent's army.
2) Army composition:
Stalker/colossus/archon/HT. At about 100 army supply, I should have about 6 colossus, 16 stalkers, 2-3 archons, a sentry for GS, and several HT scattered around the map. (6x6 + 16x2 + 3x4 + 2 = 82 + ~9 HT)
With ~70 workers, this leaves me with about 30 supply open, meaning I can use warpins of approximately 13 zealots/2 DTs at a time.
3) Warpin ability
I need to have to ability to warp in units anywhere on the map in order to achieve my goal of constant pressure, so I want to focus on spreading pylons and having an active warp prism.
My warp prism should always be on the opposite side of the map as my army and poised to warp in when the terran player gets out of position. Additionally, I want to have a probe actively making pylons using my "pylon spreading" method (i.e., building a pylon then moving the probe to the next proxy location, repeat every 30 seconds).
TRANSITION:
Once I have both storm and colossus tech and am approaching maxed, I will move out on the map to pressure my opponent while taking a 4th. My main army will be positioned in a way to protect my 4th while my warp prism will threaten the terran on the other side of the map. During this time I will also fill out my tech tree by adding 4-6 gateways, a second robo, and dark shrine.
By the time I move out, I should have +2/+2.
MID GAME:
GOAL: I want 3 bases, blink, charge, colossus tech, and storm.
Order: colossus/blink -> 3rd base -> storm -> charge.
TAKING THE 3RD: I will use colossus/blink to secure my 3rd base around 12:00.
I want to be protected vs. frontal assaults as well as defend against drops. I will leave 2 zealots/5 stalkers in my main and the rest of my army between my natural and my third; my MSC will stay parked between my natural and my main. Whenever my opponent moves out of position to attack me, I will drop his main base and keep my warp prism alive. After my 3rd base is up, I will add 4 gateways for a total of 10.
After 3 colossi, I will transition into storm while getting my 5th and 6th geysers up. During this time I will also start charge.
I want to use all my chronoboost on upgrades and colossus/storm/charge tech during the mid game.
SCV PULLS: To defend SCV pulls, I will pull all of my tech units to my natural and pull back as far as possible while flanking with zealot warpins and templar.
MAP VISION: It's important for me to have good map vision in the mid game. Therefore, I need 4-5 observers and a probe spreading pylons along the outskirts of the map.
TRANSITION:
I want to warp in 2 rounds of zealots just before 10:00 to deal with the terran medivac pressure. Once I hold off the initial pressure, I want to warp in primarily stalkers while producing colossi.
EARLY GAME:
Blink stalker/colossus opening
9 pylon 13 gateway 15 double gas (2 in 2) 17 pylon 18 core 20 zealot (cancel) 21 warp gate 21 MSC 23 nexus 23 pylon @100% gateway -> stalker x3 (chronoboost) 29 robo (5:00) 35 forge (5:45) @100% warpgate -> sentry @100% forge -> +1 armor @6:45 gate x2 @7:00 natural gases @8:00 robo bay @8:30 twilight @9:00 gate x3
@100% robo bay -> colossus + range @100% twilight -> blink and +1 attack
Chronoboost colossus/thermal lance -> Strong 2-base timing with 3-4 colossus
OR blink/+1 attack -> Later army, against later timings -> "powering" option
OR colossus/blink (*standard*) -> Strong army early -> faster, safer 3rd base
My MSC will scout the opponent's main at 5:30 to get a good indication of the terran's plan. If I see an early starport, I will place a cannon in my main and use my units to protect the main and photon overcharge and an observer to protect my natural. If no expansion, I will cut probes and go up to 4 gateways ASAP. I will rely on good micro, forcefields, and photon overcharge to deal with any pre-medivac pressure.
Conclusion: I want to open with a fast expansion and power up economically while deflecting any type of terran aggression. I will get up a colossus by 10:00 and blink shortly thereafter and transition into a colossus/blink army to take my 3rd. Once I have my 3rd up, I can start my templar tech and transition into chargelots as well. Once I have +2/+2 and a nearly maxed out army, I will move out to pressure the terran while taking a 4th and filling out my tech tree. The rest of the game I want to focus on continually denying the terran's expansions using positioning of my main army and zealot/DT warpins while always staying on at least two mining bases.
Something I would think would be very interesting is to have 2 similarly-ranked players play a series of games with one of these 'plans' discussed and written down by each player before each game. Then make little tiny adjustments on each person's side to execute their plan better without changing it entirely. Iterate this for 3-5 games, and then compile the whole set of plan/adjustments, colour- or style-coded so you can see what is being changed and how it's affecting the results.
|
Everything your said about planning is spot on, but your re-definition of macro still ticks me really hard... Macro is the ability to produce more units in a fixed amount of time, through build optimization and effective apm. You are right that all games (should) have strategies, and that all strategies have timings, but to go further and say therefore an early cheese game is also a macro game because it has a plan is incorrect...
Every strategy relies on three components to succeed: surprise, micro, and macro, but different strategies focus on different components. Not all cheeses have the same emphasis... let's compare a proxy 2 gate vs a sentry/immortal all-in. Both strategies are cheesy but they have completely different focuses. The proxy 2 gate focuses 90% on surprise to catch the opponent off guard, 10% on micro of your zealots, and virtually 0% macro, producing zealots from 2 gateways doesn't require much build optimization or effective apm. In contrast, the sentry/immortal all-in during it's popular days is 70% macro, 30% micro, and virtually 0% surprise. Most zvp games on ladder at that time were sentry/immortal all-ins, even all the pros were doing it, it was the default strategy and you won't catch anyone off guard, hence 0% surprise. What separated the men from the boys was macro and micro, which was what set Parting apart from all the other pros. Parting's build optimization was so superb he produced those 3 immortals faster and pushed out earlier than anyone else (macro), also he consistently pulled off perfect force fields and warp prism/immortal dance (micro). In comparison, the proxy 2 gate is a surprise focused all-in, with little requirement on micro and macro, whereas the sentry/immortal is a macro/micro focused all-in with little requirement of surprise.
The debate of whether to focus on strategy or mechanics often confuses players when the word "macro" gets thrown in carelessly and in erroneous context. Strategy focuses on planning, whereas mechanics focuses on execution. The reason most high level players recommend a focus on mechanics is because you Need mechanics to execute strategies. A gold level player executing Parting's sentry/immortal all-in would probably push out at 12 minutes instead of 8:30 due to poor mechanics, vs a master player who may be fooling around in strategy and did a 12 minute roach max, he would stomp the gold player despite choosing an inferior strategy. Had he played another master protoss who went sentry/immortal with better execution, he would die before his roach production even begins. That's why people give the advice of focusing on better mechanics when learning starcraft, and only focus on strategy when your basic are down.
There is such a distinct class of a macro game, it means the game plan focuses on unit production more than surprise attack or micro. In WOL, a protoss 3 base timing to kill zerg before broodlord is a macro game because your success is decided by how quickly you can produce your 3 base army to hit the zerg (macro), too late and you lose. We know that it is easy to produce units early game when you have limited economy and production, but gets harder as your economy grows and you have more things to do. An early game timing attack usually relies more on surprise and micro, because the production part is still easy, where as a late game timing mostly relies on macro and micro, who can produce the most units faster and control them better. This difference is why people look down on early game timings while they hail late game timings, because to execute a late game timing requires more skills in unit production, aka macro.
|
On November 06 2013 10:08 w3jjjj wrote: Everything your said about planning is spot on, but your re-definition of macro still ticks me really hard... Macro is the ability to produce more units in a fixed amount of time, through build optimization and effective apm. You are right that all games (should) have strategies, and that all strategies have timings, but to go further and say therefore an early cheese game is also a macro game because it has a plan is incorrect...
Every strategy relies on three components to succeed: surprise, micro, and macro, but different strategies focus on different components. Not all cheeses have the same emphasis... let's compare a proxy 2 gate vs a sentry/immortal all-in. Both strategies are cheesy but they have completely different focuses. The proxy 2 gate focuses 90% on surprise to catch the opponent off guard, 10% on micro of your zealots, and virtually 0% macro, producing zealots from 2 gateways doesn't require much build optimization or effective apm. In contrast, the sentry/immortal all-in during it's popular days is 70% macro, 30% micro, and virtually 0% surprise. Most zvp games on ladder at that time were sentry/immortal all-ins, even all the pros were doing it, it was the default strategy and you won't catch anyone off guard, hence 0% surprise. What separated the men from the boys was macro and micro, which was what set Parting apart from all the other pros. Parting's build optimization was so superb he produced those 3 immortals faster and pushed out earlier than anyone else (macro), also he consistently pulled off perfect force fields and warp prism/immortal dance (micro). In comparison, the proxy 2 gate is a surprise focused all-in, with little requirement on micro and macro, whereas the sentry/immortal is a macro/micro focused all-in with little requirement of surprise.
The debate of whether to focus on strategy or mechanics often confuses players when the word "macro" gets thrown in carelessly and in erroneous context. Strategy focuses on planning, whereas mechanics focuses on execution. The reason most high level players recommend a focus on mechanics is because you Need mechanics to execute strategies. A gold level player executing Parting's sentry/immortal all-in would probably push out at 12 minutes instead of 8:30 due to poor mechanics, vs a master player who may be fooling around in strategy and did a 12 minute roach max, he would stomp the gold player despite choosing an inferior strategy. Had he played another master protoss who went sentry/immortal with better execution, he would die before his roach production even begins. That's why people give the advice of focusing on better mechanics when learning starcraft, and only focus on strategy when your basic are down.
There is such a distinct class of a macro game, it means the game plan focuses on unit production more than surprise attack or micro. In WOL, a protoss 3 base timing to kill zerg before broodlord is a macro game because your success is decided by how quickly you can produce your 3 base army to hit the zerg (macro), too late and you lose. We know that it is easy to produce units early game when you have limited economy and production, but gets harder as your economy grows and you have more things to do. An early game timing attack usually relies more on surprise and micro, because the production part is still easy, where as a late game timing mostly relies on macro and micro, who can produce the most units faster and control them better. This difference is why people look down on early game timings while they hail late game timings, because to execute a late game timing requires more skills in unit production, aka macro.
Ultimately, though, is not a win a win? I will grant you that a pro player who relies exclusively on micro-based all-ins is going to do poorly in the long run because of predictability, but getting hung up on definitions when you could be focusing on the details of your play seems short-sighted to me.
If I were to put it another way: your definition and my definition (or SC2John's, or vaderseven's, for that matter) do not have to match in order for both of us to play a macro game against one another. Our definitions of macro have absolutely zero influence on the outcome of the game. The only thing that influences the outcome of the game is how well we use the tools based on micro, macro, and decision-making. Not coincidentally, that's exactly what we're discussing here.
Saying "I am going to play macro games to work on my mechanics" is not a game plan, and actually contributes nothing to your ability to win. Saying "I am going to overwhelm my opponent in the late game with sheer numbers of units off of 4 bases" is a specific, recognizable plan that has necessary steps leading up to it. For instance:
Backtracking from that goal, we get things like "I will use Siege Tanks and Marine drops to defend my third, and eventually fourth, bases while pinning my opponent back so he can't punish me."
Back up from there: "I will go up to 5 Barracks with 4 Reactors/1 TL, a single TL Factory, and a Reactor Starport on two bases and use those structures to produce enough units to push out and take my third, while defending against possible allins".
Further yet: "I will go up to 3 Barracks and 1 Factory after expanding and defend allins using Tanks and Marines, while checking for a quick third by my opponent with my earliest Marines"
Keep it up: "I will go 1-rax FE in the beginning of the game to try and gain an economic lead, keeping Marine production constant and scouting for 1-base play".
NOW we have a concrete series of statements that form a coherent plan, and not ONCE have we used the word 'macro' in spite of the fact that MANY persons' definitions of macro would line up with the type of game we're playing. And our planning has not suffered in the slightest due to that fact.
|
No, a win is not a win in the context of improving, especially for new players. Every strategy focuses on different aspects of the game, you can get wins by doing 6 pool every game, but it won't improve your macro at all and only minimum micro practice.
Nor should you need a strategy to get better, in fact it can be detrimental to new players to focus on strategy instead of mechanics. Saying a "I'm going to play macro games to work on my mechanics" is a great plan, for example, objectives such as "I'm gonna miss as few larva injects as possible" is a very good practice goal. It doesn't matter if you cannot multitask or have no strategy at all and lose the game, as long as you got better at larva inject that mechanic will always benefit your future games, and you reach a point where you no longer need to actively think about larva inject anymore it becomes automatic. In contrast, saying "I'm gonna max on roaches by 12 minutes to attack my opponent's third" is a useless plan if you do not have the larva inject mechanics to pull it off.
What your examples all lack in common is timing, because you are ignoring what macro means, the speed of which you can build units. To say "I will 1-rax FE in the beginning of the game and try to gain an economic lead" is meaningless because it is vague, how soon can you get your CC up? How many scvs by what minute mark constitutes a economic lead? These are Macro questions that new players should focus on. To produce x scvs by y minutes is a way better improvement goal than to say "I will use siege tanks and marine drops to defend my third", you need Macro to execute strategy, a perfect strategy means nothing if the execution is lacking.
I agree with what OP said about the planning process, but it does not appear that he understands what macro means nor how important it is to focus on macro instead of strategy.
|
United States4883 Posts
On November 06 2013 11:30 w3jjjj wrote: No, a win is not a win in the context of improving, especially for new players. Every strategy focuses on different aspects of the game, you can get wins by doing 6 pool every game, but it won't improve your macro at all and only minimum micro practice.
Nor should you need a strategy to get better, in fact it can be detrimental to new players to focus on strategy instead of mechanics. Saying a "I'm going to play macro games to work on my mechanics" is a great plan, for example, objectives such as "I'm gonna miss as few larva injects as possible" is a very good practice goal. It doesn't matter if you cannot multitask or have no strategy at all and lose the game, as long as you got better at larva inject that mechanic will always benefit your future games, and you reach a point where you no longer need to actively think about larva inject anymore it becomes automatic. In contrast, saying "I'm gonna max on roaches by 12 minutes to attack my opponent's third" is a useless plan if you do not have the larva inject mechanics to pull it off.
What your examples all lack in common is timing, because you are ignoring what macro means, the speed of which you can build units. To say "I will 1-rax FE in the beginning of the game and try to gain an economic lead" is meaningless because it is vague, how soon can you get your CC up? How many scvs by what minute mark constitutes a economic lead? These are Macro questions that new players should focus on. To produce x scvs by y minutes is a way better improvement goal than to say "I will use siege tanks and marine drops to defend my third", you need Macro to execute strategy, a perfect strategy means nothing if the execution is lacking.
I agree with what OP said about the planning process, but it does not appear that he understands what macro means nor how important it is to focus on macro instead of strategy.
On playing "macro":
On November 03 2013 18:34 vaderseven wrote: I suggest learning a game plan that you feel you understand the logic behind the winning move OR to blindly play out a macro build you stole from someone very good at the game.
If you choose the latter, pay attention to what you lose and carefully group the replays. Once you have played and lost enough, you can begin to make statements of logic about how you feel the game can be won. Once you have blindly macro'd to a lose vs a maxed protoss army as terran 500 times you start to see the logic in killing the toss before they get to that stage and you even start to see the logic of killing them at specific times.
Personally, I choose the first choice. Find some kind of logic, to hell with WHEN that logic leads to a win, and build a plan based on the logic. Then gather replays and analyze and modify logically while executing confidently.
The blind macro method can be useful for very low level players to jump start their mind with some metagame as you will see a wide variety of enemy styles which will help to motivate logical plans on how to kill said enemies.
On "macro" as a tool to support the strategy:
On October 28 2013 03:02 SC2John wrote: I think you're missing the point of my post. Macro, in your definition, is simply a tool to support your strategy. In just the same way, aggression, composition, and hiding information are also tools to support your strategy. A "macro game" or "macro strategy", though, is simply a game based around a plan (according to my definition). If you goal is to win with an attack, the timing of it doesn't actually change the goal; it just changes the way you get there. Whether you attack at 4:00, 10:00, 14:00, or 20:00 for the win, the game goal is still the same.
The purpose of this thread is how to plan a strategy, not how to improve mechanics. If your focus is to work on mechanics (as it should with most lower level players), the best course of action is to focus on mechanics and not on strategy. But from the perspective of planning strategy, the term "macro" means nothing. Good strategies already assume good macro and attempt to hit the best possible timings based on said good macro while bad strategies are either logically flawed or cannot possibly be supported by perfect macro.
If your goal is something along the lines of hitting a powerful 3-base attack before vipers in PvZ, then your timing becomes pretty clear based on perfect macro (before 11:00 if it's a fast hive, before 13:00 otherwise) and tons of practice. If your goal is to win with a 2-base attack with 2 bases and 3 immortals, then your timing is when you get 2 fully saturated bases and 2 immortals as quickly as possible. The strategy dictates the timing based on good macro.
If you have bad macro, either practice a simple strategy with very simple goals (a cheese or a timing attack) or just do the "blind macro" method vader mentioned (i.e., copying Innovation's TvZ and playing it over and over and over). Either way, I'm not advocating that players should ignore mechanics and spend a lot of time thinking about strategy; instead, I think it's best for players to have a general game plan and go into it with the idea of refining it to the point of perfection. If you're refining a game plan, you're going to improve a lot faster (both in mechanics and game knowledge) than you would by simply trying to "macro" to a competent level.
|
From w3jjjj
Macro is the ability to produce more units in a fixed amount of time, through build optimization and effective apm.
OK. So macro is a skill, which w3jjjj then goes on to expand into.
From this definition, then it is definitely correct that there is no "macro strategy". There are various strategies that will incorporate or rely on more or less complex and precise macro.
The entire point of this post is that macro is not a strategy. Nobody is denying that macroing more effectively is a valuable skill, or that it will improve your win-rate. You should DEFINITELY be making every effort to improve your macro.
There is another side to this that makes this post more valuable, both from a learning standpoint and a gaming standpoint.
First, as games go longer, macro becomes increasingly more complex. Macroing 3-bases worth of production and income is far more difficult than macroing off of 2 bases.
If you look at how you people learn to increase their (skills, muscle memory, muscle strength, this also works for changing your habits) then the theme that prevails is that of progressive overload. You constantly push yourself a little further, until what was difficult becomes manageable, and then you push yourself further.
Unfortunately, a single game of starcraft in isolation does not allow for this progressive overload. It's too fast.
SO, from a learning standpoint... then it makes sense to learn macro by starting with strategies that require less complex and intricate macro to succeed, and then, when you have developed the macro skills required to execute that strategy effectively through practicing and mass-gaming it enough, moving to a more complex strategy that requires more advanced macro & micro to accomplish.
The other point that's worth looking at is, as mentioned, that "I'm going to play a macro game" is not a valid strategy. Forming a strategy and breaking it down to a game-plan per the above posts is. Know what helps you macro effectively? Having a plan! Knowing what you want to accomplish before you are faced with the decision point helps you to move quickly, increase apm, and effectively accomplish your goals.
|
SC2John,see my first post, I never disagreed with your planning steps, only how you re-defined a macro game as any game with a plan. To my knowledge macro had always meant the ability to produce more units in a limited time. My second post was responding to Jazzman88 who claimed that macro focused practice is not a viable game plan to improve... I believe a strategy can only be as good as it's execution. Many good points made in this thread. Cheers
|
Actually, SC2John and I are making a point that a macro game doesn't mean having a good a plan and that some game plans that are very well thought out do not really take advantage of macro related skills.
Its not that we are redefining a macro game. We are trying to redefine the mindset of players wishing to improve as currently the accepted logic of the english community has been to learn to macro and then the rest will come easy. I am saying that the rest is not actually easy, strategy and game planning are holding so many players back from doing things with their macro related skills.
Ideally, a player learns mechanics and strategy at a roughly equal pace or works on one then on the other in such a way that they remain well rounded. In the English world, we tell people to ignore game plans and get themselves a build order and macro or just freestyle and macro. I argue that is bad and that a better mind is to blindly macro then stop and think after many games and apply a game plan to solve issues or too learn game plans that are withing your mechanical ability and as you progress in skill you will naturally be able to plan a longer game and play a longer game.
The average Korean gamer that did not just pick up the game has better macro and micro than the average English speaking player that has played the game for the same amount of time. We all know that. Its accepted at this point as factual. I just want to point out that the average Korean gamer is applying a game plan at a better level than the English player that has played just as long.
What prompted my friend to say what he said in this quote was me playing a build order vs him over and over and over and he would do a different style vs it each time:
I used to have a Korean Starcraft practice partner. One day he asked me, "Why do you think Koreans are so cheesy when they're learning to play?" I don't remember exactly what I replied, but it was probably something along the lines of: "They've got better micro, macro, etc., so they can win early." He took a moment, then responded, "No, it's because the goal of the game is much simpler."
He was trying to tell me that it was useless for me to do the build I was doing. I had no idea why I was doing it. I was playing a savior style three hatch muta into lurker into four hatch hive play. I was playing it vs mech, two rax FE into heavy tank marine, SK terran style, you name it.
I couldn't macro it 100% perfect at all so I had variable numbers of units at the various timings.
I never learned till I was much better how that build was intended to be used and I must say that learning an aggressive two hatch muta style would have been so much better for me as it was still going to take my efforts to macro correctly and the plan behind it was something I could grasp even back then just watching vods.
The point is, don't just do super simple plans for easy wins sake. Try to use the most complex plans that you can understand as that will push your understanding and your mechanics at a very fair rate. It will lead to a much better end result. If you are one of the many stuck in plat/diamond with decent apm and sq you might need to relearn the entire game just so you can gain the skill we talk about in this thread.
Thats the point of us talking about good game plans w3jjjj.
Actually, on another note, my mechanics usually go to shit once I go outside the realm of my game plan. I can see myself thinking via extra movement clicks, screen scrolling, staring at things to see them finish, etc.
|
Good points vadarseven, and I agree that strategy is important to some degree. I remember a time in BW I was working on macro zvp and I always quickly expanded to 4 bases but I kept dying to 2 base timings, and I had to learn to adjust my game plan and base my decision on scouting, so I know where you are coming from.
However, a different perspective in another story is when I switched from bw to WOL, I did it very late it was about a year into the game already, but because I've played bw for many years, my mechanics got me into master league within a couple of days, I was beating master players who understood the game and knew their strategies, and I didn't even know what infestor were... The longer I've played starcraft, the more I'm convinced that mechanics are more important than strategy. I remember in bw asking an A- level korean why I'm losing to him even though I'm playing the right strategy vs his build, and he simply in broken English told me that I have not enough units...
I guess I'm more traditional in this strategy vs mechanics debate, and I don't advocate new players to study strategy at all, I feel it's sort of detrimental if they waste their time on anything but mechanics. In my personal experience the conventional mindset that you are challenging here actually worked out very well. When I was C/C+ on iccup I was learning all the different "right" strategies but I didn't have the mechanics to execute well and I was stuck at that level, my breakthrough came when I focused purely on mechanics, doing the same build but execute better and better, especially macro, which was to make more units faster, and I climbed up from C to B in a very short amount of time. Perhaps your experience differed and your breakthrough came when you focused on strategy, different players different learning curves.
|
On November 06 2013 13:56 w3jjjj wrote:SC2John,see my first post, I never disagreed with your planning steps, only how you re-defined a macro game as any game with a plan. To my knowledge macro had always meant the ability to produce more units in a limited time. My second post was responding to Jazzman88 who claimed that macro focused practice is not a viable game plan to improve... I believe a strategy can only be as good as it's execution. Many good points made in this thread. Cheers
Ooops, that was not the point of my statement - I must have misspoke. I was saying that trying to define macro and obsessing about whether or not you're playing a 'macro game' isn't in itself a game plan. Obviously the mechanics of macro-management are critical to your success, but I compare it to my music. I don't go into a performance saying "I'm going to play the right notes in the right order" because it's just assumed that excellent players do that sort of thing and improving players are working on that. I go into a performance saying things like "I want to build my whole concerto in intensity so that the maximum volume and emotional effect is reached on the last note. On the way, there are several important themes I need to stress in the middle point of the piece so as to draw the audience in."
Sorry if I came across strong - I believe that language has a lot of power, and if we spend our time just continuously arguing about macro, we're not actually improving. DO the macro, and DO a game plan, but don't worry about the appearance of macro or whether or not people will 'look down' on a macro game or not.
|
Here is my strategy plan. Simple and effective:
TvX SCOUTING Hold ALL watchtowers have reaper/SCV/marine checking for expansions Make minute adjustements based on scouting information
TvZ OPENING Reaper opening into hellion reaper (2 reapers, 6 hellions) CC Add 2 more Reactored Rax Stim Double engineering Bay 1-1 TIMING ATTACK Move out 11-13 mins with MMMM to kill zergs third Have 3rd CC building behind it Add Armory Start 2-2 Add 2 more rax to make 5 and a second factory with tech lab Research drilling claws Do not parade push. Push out in contingencies, muster troops at home to defend counter attacks.
LATE GAME Be sure to add 3 additional Rax when taking 3rd, Have them all tech labbed for marauders in preparation for usual Ultralisk transition.
If Broodlords, add 2 extra starports maybe 3 depending on economy.
TvP OPENING Reaper Expand, CC First or 1 Rax FE Get 3 rax and stim Ebay for +1 Add Factory with reactor while building Starport TIMING ATTACK MMM with +1, combat shields and STIM Goal is to force gateway units and pick off sentries Secure a 3rd and protect with sim city bunker and turret.
MID GAME Adapt to Protoss tech and win by economical advantage. e.g. 3 Colossus, heavy stalker count and high templar. Throw down one Ghost Academy, get about 4-5 ghosts, 12 vikings, and higher marauder count.
LATE GAME Protoss should be dead by now... if not slowly transition into BC/Viking/raven.
TvT MECH! - Me personally, never play mech so just trying simple 1-1-1 openings and being creative.
Mainly have fun, dick around, and dont expect to win. This is my fun matchup.
Goal: Gain a strong feel for all mech based units. Copy pro strategies (Strelok!!)
|
|
|
|